opinions

why

>>70179638
i'm just curious what you plebs think.
ultimately, it seems that the general population doesn't really ever have a say in what sort of art they are marketed, and just sort of half-knowingly sustain whatever it is that they are first given (and then refuse all opportunities to change that dynamic). so I think it'd be cool to argue about what the mainstream is really for, and hear what other anons think. is it ours, or is it theirs, which they then give to us?

also, I am a musician with many WIPs and want some perspective on how striving to infiltrate the public eye is viewed today.

the media used to be a tool for geniuses, now it's just a toy for tyrants. don't you want something with more substance?

>>70179920
pic reminds me of twenty one pilots which made me realize - if the mainstream is going in that direction, im more than happy, honestly. i know its a meme here but they are truly a breath of fresh air. that kind of genre-mixing music is the next big thing i think, next to the usual mega celebrities like rihanna/katy perry etc. its nothing new, but for mainstream it is.

>the media used to be a tool for geniuses, now it's just a toy for tyrants

that's some top tier cinical old fart bullshit.
"geniuses" weren't considered that when they first came to the scene, 20 y/o musical prodigies were primarily adored by 15-25 y/o since day one. "geniuses" get that title after years of work, or when they die. the media is the same as it's always been, the only thing that changed is that there's more of it now, but the same thing stands for musical "geniuses".

>>70180974
Genre-mixing does not always constitute good. In fact it can be like mixing milk and ketchup. I think that it is the illusion of innovation honestly. Instead of making a truly original idea, people will just combine two already existing ideas and claim that "ITS SO FRESH AND BOUNDARY PUSHING!!!".

>>70181404
true

Bump for interest.

>>70180974
I see some of what you're saying.
especially the thing about young people.
but didn't their fans already adore them for things greater than hype?
I feel like people like music now less for actual composition or message and more for image and hype.

is there a shallowness peculiar to this generation of music?

and, where do older genres (90s, early 2000s) stand in the media today? people still play the shit out of it, so how would they react to actually good newcomers?

what is your opinion on rock music, anon?

>>70179610
What's supposed to happen if I stare at the dot?

>>70183171
your dick will fall off in exactly one hour

File: b57.gif (2MB, 400x242px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x242px

>>70183333
quads have spoken

>>70183333
what if I don't have a dick

>>70183361
do you have a significant other who has one?

>infiltrate popular music
ok pal

>>70182545
>but didn't their fans already adore them for things greater than hype?
absolutely, thats what fans are for, they analyse every part of the band's music and support them. hype is a huge part because its the core, the energy, and its crucial for a good live show, which attracts people and (future) fans and makes everything evolve. different things were more important in different times because every decade (or some kind of "era" if you will) has different influences.

for example (and its a bad one), music was heavily influenced by drugs in the past century, you could literally categorize every decade of pop music of the 20th century by drug; 60-70s weed, psychodelics, 80s cocaine, 90s heroin, molly for ravers etc. drugs are very mildly used today compared to previous decades, and arent really connected to any genre. maaaybe EDM is connected to speed and mdma or something, but its not as loudly popular as in the past. also for cigarettes which have always been a rock-star image, they've had a pretty bad rap since 10-15 years ago and its only getting worse, today people older than 15 see smokers as low-key pathetic because we know so much about those things. maybe information is the drug of today? im starting to bullshit but you get the point.

>is there a shallowness peculiar to this generation of music?
i think there isnt. i think there never was in the first place, and that the shallowness is truly in the eye of the beholder. the thing about this generation that might make itcome come across as shallow is the quantity of it. since the beatles fell apart world population t r i p l e d, the quality of life approved worldwide which contributes to the amount of music produced, which means those who want to be known musicians must either work much harder than those before them, or have a lot of luck. there is so much more music to choose from today, compared to before, and maybe that comes across as shallow?

>>70182545
and, where do older genres (90s, early 2000s) stand in the media today? people still play the shit out of it, so how would they react to actually good newcomers?

im not sure if i get the question fully but i think that most 90s bands have the "genius" stamp of approval now, and in their time they were dragged through dirt by some and praised by others. i think the 2000s have more to go to get a genius because the 2000s are much more "comfortable", they lack the rockstar image. i dont know an artist that came from living in a gutter to a popstar legend in the last 2 decades (which helps a lot with the "genius" label) , but maybe im wrong.

what is your opinion on rock music, anon?
its 90% of my repertoire, i love it.
i think its painful to do these "essays" and analyse every speck of music because i think its very simple - if it feels good, then its good music. you shouldnt measure it because quality is truly immeasurable. its not "what", its "how" - vocal range, instruments, lyrics, simplicity or complexity - if it works, it works, the rest doesnt really matter. (it obviously does matter, but not in the way we think it matters)